Sunita v. State Of Haryana & ANR

Vinod Kumar 2017.07.04 12:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document [ 1 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of decision:03.07.2017 Sunita

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another

...Respondents

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

Present:

Mr. Shashi Bharat Bhushan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) This petition is filed for seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 02.09.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Fatehabad, while exercising his powers under Section 51(1)(b) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), putting the petitioner (who happened to be the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bangaon, Block and District Fatehabad) under suspension and debarring her from participating in any proceedings of the Gram Panchayat and the order dated 25.10.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 51(5) of the Act, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and directing the Deputy Commissioner to complete the regular inquiry pending against the petitioner and take a final view on it within a period of three months.

In short, the petitioner was elected to the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bangaon, Block and District Fatehabad. A complaint was filed against her by one Ram Panwar, resident of village Bangaon that being a

[ 2 ] Schedule Caste candidate, the petitioner was required to have passed 8th class but she had contested the election on the basis of a fake 8th class certificate. The complaint was entertained by the Competent Authority and on a preliminary inquiry, the 8th class certificate tendered by the petitioner at the time of election was found to be fake. Accordingly, the petitioner was put under suspension and a regular inquiry was ordered to be held to find out as to whether the petitioner was actually involved in producing the fake educational certificate at the time of contesting election to the post of Sarpanch.

Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 51(5) of the Act but the Appellate Authority upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner by observing that the District School Inspector, Hathras, while sending the report dated 13.05.2016, has sent the 8th class certificate No.3107 bearing the name of Lalu Parshad S/o Ram Gopal, which does not belong to the petitioner, who is otherwise Sunita W/o Satbir Singh. In this background, the Appellate Authority held that the matter requires regular enquiry and maintained the order of suspension of the petitioner so that she may not participate in any proceedings of the Gram Panchayat.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order could not have been passed because the election of the petitioner could have been challenged in terms of Section 176 of the Act and has also referred to an interim order dated 14.03.2017 passed by this Court in the case of Ram Kala vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.5167 of 2017. He has also submitted that the executive authorities should not have interfered in the election matter as the election can only be set aside in an election petition by the Civil Court.

[ 3 ] After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and examining the available record, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the present writ petition because the power to put under suspension is vested with the Competent Authority in terms of Section 51 of the Act, which has been exercised against the petitioner on a complaint received against her of having returned to the post of Sarpanch on the basis of a fake educational certificate. The complaint was inquired into and on a preliminary inquiry, it was found that the matter requires regular inquiry and, thus, the petitioner was put under suspension by exercising the powers under Section 51(1)(b) of the Act.

On appeal, the Appellate Authority had also found that the document received from the school, from where the petitioner had allegedly passed her 8th class, was not tallying with the document produced by the petitioner and, thus, the order of the Competent Authority was upheld though a direction was issued to complete the regular inquiry within a period of three months. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any error in the approach of the authorities concerned in putting the petitioner under suspension and hence, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed being denuded of any merit, though without any order as to costs.

July 03, 2017 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge Whether speaking / reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No